CHAPTER III.

MR. BRADLAUGH INCLUDED.

MR. MALONEY obtained his summons against Mr. Bradlaugh, whose
name was included in a new document which was served on all of us.
I have lost our first Summons, but I am able to give a copy of the
second. It ran thus:

"TO WILLIAM JAMES RAMSEY, of 28 Stonecutter Street, in
the City of London, and 20 Brownlow Street, Dalston, in the county
of Middlesex; GEORGE WILLIAM FOOTE, of 9 South Crescent, Bedford
Square, in the county of Middlesex; EDWARD WILLIAM WHITTLE, of 170
Saint John Street, Clerkenwell, in the county of Middlesex; and
CHARLES BRADLAUGH, of 20 Circus Road, Saint John's Wood, in the
county of Middlesex, and 28 Stonecutter Street, in the City of
London.

"Whereas you have this day been charged before the under-signed,
the Lord Mayor of the City of London, being one of Her Majesty's
justices of the peace in and for the said City, and the liberties
thereof, by Sir Henry Tyler, of Dashwood House, 9 New Broad Street,
in the said City, for that you, in the said City, unlawfully did
publish, or cause and procure to be published, certain blasphemous
libels in a newspaper called the Freethinker, dated and
published on the days following -- that is to say, on the 26th day
of March, 1882, on the 9th, 23rd and 30th days of April, 1882, and
on the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days of May, 1882, and on the 11th
and 18th days of June, 1882, against the peace, etc.:

"These are therefore to command you, in Her Majesty's name, to
be and appear before me, on Monday, the 17th day of July, 1882, at
eleven of the clock in the forenoon, at the Mansion House
Justice-Room, in the said City, or before such other justice or
justices of the peace for the same City as may then be there, to
answer to the said charge, and to be further dealt with according
to law. Herein fail not.

"Given under my hand and seal, this 12th day of July, in the
year of our Lord 1882, at the Mansion House Justice-Room,
aforesaid.

"WHITTAKER ELLIS,
Lord Mayor, London."

On the following Monday, July 17, the junior Member for
Northampton stood beside us in the Mansion House dock. The court
was of course crowded, and a great number of people stood outside
waiting for a chance of admission. The Lord Mayor considerately
allowed us seats on hearing that the case would occupy a long time,
a piece of attention which he might also have displayed on the
previous Tuesday. It seems extremely unjust that men who are
defending themselves, who need all their strength for the task, and
who may after all be innocent, should be obliged to stand for hours
in a crowded court in the dog-days, and waste half their energies
in the perfectly gratuitous exertion of maintaining their physical
equilibrium.

I shall not describe the proceedings before the Lord Mayor on
this occasion. Properly speaking, it was Mr. Bradlaugh's day, and
some time or other its incidents will be recorded in his biography.
Suffice it to say that he showed his usual legal dexterity, sat on
poor Mr. Maloney, and sadly puzzled the Lord Mayor. I must,
however, refer to one point, as it illustrates the high Christian
morality of our prosecutors. Mr. Maloney had obtained an illegal
order from the Lord Mayor to inspect Mr. Bradlaugh's bank account,
and armed with this order, which, even if it were legal, would not
have extended beyond the limits of the City, this enterprising
barrister had overhauled the books of the St. John's Wood Branch of
the London and South-Western Bank. Lord Coleridge's astonishment at
this unheard-of proceeding was only equalled by his trenchant
sarcasm on the Lord Mayor as a legal functionary, and his bitter
cold sneer at Mr. Maloney, who, it further appeared, had actually
played the part of an amateur detective, by setting street
policemen to watch Mr. Bradlaugh's entries and exits from his
publishing office.

On the following Friday, July 21, the hearing of our case was
resumed. We were all committed for trial at the Old Bailey, with
the exception of Mr. Whittle, the printer, against whom the
prosecution was abandoned on the ground that he had ceased to print
the Freethinker. This was an unpleasant fact, and alas! it
was only one of a good many I shall have to relate presently.

Before our committal I essayed to read a brief protest against
the prosecution, which I had carefully prepared. In defiance of the
statute, the Lord Mayor refused to hear it. An altercation then
ensued, and I should have insisted on my right unless stopped by
brute force; but on his lordship promising that a copy should be
attached to the depositions, I yielded in order to let Mr.
Bradlaugh have a full opportunity of stigmatising Sir Henry Tyler,
who had left his questionable business at Dashwood House during a
part of the day, to gloat over the spectacle of his enemy in a
criminal dock.

Some portions of my half-suppressed protest ought not to be
omitted in this history. After dealing in a few lines with the
origin of the Blasphemy Laws, censuring the conduct of Sir Henry
Tyler, and alluding to Sir. William Harcourt's reply to Mr.
Freshfield, I expressed myself as follows:

"What, indeed, do the prosecutors hope or expect to
gain? Freethought is no longer a weak, tentative, apologetic thing;
it is strong, bold, and aggressive; and no law could now suppress
it except one of extermination. Every breach made in its ranks by
imprisonment would be instantly filled; and as punishment is not
eternal on this side of death, the imprisoned man would some day
return to his old place, fiercer than ever for the fight, and
inflamed with an unappeasable hatred of the religion whose
guardians prefer punishment to persuasion, and supplement the
weakness of argument by the force of brutality.

"Blasphemy is a very general offence if we take even the lenient
definitions of Sir James Stephen in his 'Digest of the Criminal
Law.' All who publicly advocate the disestablishment of the Church
are guilty under one clause, and half the leading writers of our
age are guilty under another. It is difficult to find a book by any
eminent scientist or thinker which does not contain open or covert
attacks on Christianity and Scripture, and the Archbishop of
Canterbury has pathetically complained that it is dangerous to
introduce high-class magazines to the family circle, because they
are nearly sure to contain a large quantity of scepticism. Why are
these propagators of heresy never molested? Because it would be
perilous to touch them. Prosecutions are always reserved for those
who are unprotected by wealth and position. Heresy in expensive
books for the upper classes is safe, but heresy in cheap
publications for the people incurs a terrible danger. The one is
flattered and conciliated, while the other is liable at any moment
to be put on its defence in a criminal court, and is always at the
mercy of any man who may choose to indulge his political animosity,
his social enmity, or his private spite.

"Blasphemy is entirely a matter of opinion. What is blasphemy in
one country is piety in another. Progress tends to reduce it from a
crime to an affair of taste. To deal with it in the bad spirit of
the old laws, which are only unrepealed because they have been
treated as obsolete, is to outrage the conscience of civilisation,
and to violate that liberty of the press which Bentham justly
called 'the foundation of all other liberties.' If opinions are not
forced on people's attention, if they are expressed in publications
which are sold, which can be patronised or neglected, and which
must be deliberately sought before they can be read; then, unless
they contain incitements to crime, they are entitled to immunity
from molestation, and to interfere with them is the height of
gratuitous impertinence."

In the ordinary course our Indictment would have been tried at
the Old Bailey. The grand jury found a true bill against us, after
being charged by the Recorder, Sir Thomas Chambers, who addressed
them as fellow Christians, quite forgetful of the fact that Jews
and Deists are eligible as jurymen no less than orthodox believers.
According to the newspapers this bigot described our blasphemous
libels as "shocking," and said that "it was impossible for any
Christian man to read them without feeling that they came within
that description, and they ought to return a true bill." This same
Sir Thomas Chambers is a patron of piety, especially when it takes
the form of aggressive polemics. Some time afterwards he joined a
committee, with the late Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Mayor Fowler, and
other religious worthies, whose object was to raise a testimonial
to Samuel Kinns, an obscure author who has written a stupid volume
on "Moses and Geology" for the purpose of showing that the book of
Genesis, to use Huxley's expression, contains the beginning and the
end of sound science. It thus appears that a Christian magistrate
may subscribe (or, which is quite as pious and far more economical,
induce others to subscribe) for the confutation of heretics, and
afterwards send them to gaol for not being confuted. What a
glorious commentary on the great truth that England is a free
country, and that Christianity relies entirely on the force of
persuasion! Fortunately, however, our case was not tried at the Old
Bailey. Mr. Bradlaugh obtained a writ of certiorari removing
the indictment to the Court of Queen's Bench, where our case was
put in the Crown List, and did not come on for hearing until two
months after I was imprisoned on another indictment. Mr. Bradlaugh
obtained the writ on July 29, 1882. It was during the long
vacation, and we had to appear before more than one judge in
chambers, Mr. Justice Stephen being the one who granted the writ. I
remember roaming the Law Courts with Mr. Bradlaugh that morning. We
went from office to office in the most perplexing manner.
Everything seemed designed to baffle suitors who conduct their own
cases. Obsolete technicalities, only half intelligible even to
experts, met one at every turn, and when I left the Law Courts I
felt that the thing was indeed done, but that it would almost
puzzle omniscience to do it again in exactly the same way. Over
seven pounds was spent in stamps, documents, and other items; and I
was informed that a solicitor's charges for the morning's work
would have exceeded thirty pounds. Securities for costs were
required to the extent of six hundred pounds, and of course they
had to be given. Yet we were merely seeking justice and a fair
trial! As I walked home I pondered the great truth that England is
a free country, and that there is one law for the rich and the
poor; yet I reflected that as only the rich could afford it, the
poor might as well have no law at all.

I have already referred to our printer's defection. Acting under
advice, Mr. Whittle declined to print the Comic Bible Sketch in the
number for July 16, and the following week he refused to print at
all. He announced this decision after all the type was set up and
the "formes" were almost ready for the press. Only forty-eight
hours remained before the Freethinker was due. During that
period, in company with my friend and sub-editor, Mr. J. M.
Wheeler, I made desperate efforts to get a printer to undertake the
work. At last I discovered a Freethinker who placed his inadequate
resources at my disposal. He could only set up four pages of type,
and only print copies with a hand-press. Even that was better than
nothing; anything being preferable to lowering the flag in the heat
of battle. But alas! fate is stronger than gods or men. I was
foiled at the last moment, just as victory seemed within my grasp;
how I forbear to explain, although the incidents of that
eventful day would form an interesting chapter of my Autobiography.
Enough copies were pulled to constitute a legal issue of the paper,
and one of these is safely deposited in the British Museum; but
none were printed for the market, and it was everywhere reported
that the Freethinker was dead. Christian Evidence lecturers
joyously announced the fact at their meetings, and Mr. Maloney
ironically alluded to it in Court. I bore all these taunts with
grim silence, which was at last broken, not by words, but by deeds.
These people did not know that the Freethinker, like the
founder of their faith, had disappeared one week only to reappear
the next. With the aid of Mr. Ramsey, who again stood by our side,
we succeeded in restoring our paper to the light of day. Type was
purchased, compositors were engaged, and a little shop was taken in
Harp Alley. The Freethinker for July 30 struck astonishment
into the souls of those who had rejoiced over its death when they
saw no Freethinker for July 23. From that moment our issue
was never once suspended, although we had some desperate close
shaves.

In the number for August 6, as I could not get our machiner to
print any Comic Bible Sketches just then, I published a serious
one, reproduced from an old Dutch Bible of 1669. It represented
Moses obtaining a panoramic view of Jehovah's back parts. Below the
text I inserted the following notice: "As the bigots object to our
Comic Bible Sketches, we shall publish a few Serious Bible
Sketches, copied accurately from old Bibles of the ages of faith,
to show what the Christians have done themselves in the way of
familiar interpretation. We hope the bigots will like the change."
By the next week, however, I had overcome our machiner's scruples,
and the Comic Bible Sketches were resumed and continued up to the
day of my imprisonment.

My attitude towards the prosecution is amply expressed by these
facts, but a few words from my pen at that time may not be
altogether superfluous. In an article entitled "Crucify Him!" in
the Freethinker of August 6, 1882, I wrote:

"We are charged with blasphemy, and so was Jesus
Christ. What a grim joke it will be if the Freethinker is
found guilty and punished for the same crime as the preacher of the
Sermon on the Mount! Truly adversity makes us acquainted with
strange bedfellows.

"Yet, whatever happens, we will not quail. We will not vapor
about legions of angels, but trust in the living legions of
Freethought. We will not yield to the weakness of an agony and
bloody sweat, nor pray that the cup may pass from us, nor cry out
that we are forsaken; for our sources of strength are all within
us, and cannot be taken away. We have a sense of truth, a
conviction of right, and a spirit of courage, caught from the
gallant men who fought before. Let the bigots do their worst; they
will not break our spirit nor extinguish our cause. Let the
Christian mob clamor as loudly as they can, 'Crucify him, crucify
him!' They will not daunt us. We look with prophetic eyes over all
the tumult, and see in the distance the radiant form of Liberty,
bearing in her left hand the olive branch and in her right hand the
sword, the holy victress, destined by treaty or conquest to bring
the whole world under her sway. And across all the din we hear her
great rich voice, banishing despair, inspiring hope, and infusing a
joyous ardour in every nerve."

From the first I was sure that the Freethought party would
support those who were fighting its battle, and I was not deceived.
The Freethinker Defence Fund was liberally subscribed to
throughout the country, several working men putting by a few pence
every week for the purpose; and as I travelled up and down on my
lecturing tours I experienced everywhere the heartiest greetings. I
saw that the party's blood was up, and that however it might
ultimately fare with me, the battle would be fought to the bitter
end.

Considerable controversy took place in the daily and weekly
press. Professor W. A. Hunter contributed a timely letter to the
Daily News, in which he described the Blasphemy Laws as "a
weapon always ready to the hand of mischievous fools or designing
knaves." Mr. G. J. Holyoake wrote in his usual vein of covert
attack on Freethinkers in danger. Mrs. Besant joined in the fray
anonymously, and a letter appeared also from my own pen. There were
articles on the subject in the provincial newspapers, and amongst
the London journals I must especially commend the Weekly
Dispatch, which never wavered in faithfulness to its Liberal
traditions, and stood firm in its censure of our prosecution from
first to last, even when other journals turned from the path of
religious liberty, proved traitors to their principles, and joined
the bigots in their cry of "To prison, to prison!" against the
obnoxious heretics.

For some time after this we pursued the even tenor of our way.
Many of the wholesale newsagents, who had been frightened when our
prosecution was initiated, regained confidence and resumed their
orders. Early in October we removed from Harp Alley to 28
Stonecutter Street, which had just been vacated by the Freethought
Publishing Company, and which has ever since been the publishing
office of the Freethinker. About the same time I issued a
pamphlet entitled "Blasphemy no Crime," a copy of which was sent to
every newspaper in the United Kingdom. It traversed the whole field
of discussion, and gave a brief history of past prosecutions for
Blasphemy, as well as the principal facts of our own case. In
November I announced the preparation of the second Christmas Number
of the Freethinker, the publication for which I paid the
penalty of twelve months' imprisonment. Before, however, I deal
fully with that awful subject I will redeem my promise to inform my
readers of the nature of our indictment, and what were the actual
charges preferred against us by Sir Henry Tyler on behalf of the
insulted universe.